click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBC 8
MSNBCW 8
CSPAN 1
KTVU (FOX) 1
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
's responsibility, and it's harry reid's job and harry reid and his lieutenants obviously schumer and durbin, are supposed to get that budget done. it's shameful and really should be doing it. they say they're going to do it this time, i wouldn't hold your breath. how do you run a business and your own household if you don't have a budget. how to you set the priorities of senate and congress it's unacceptable. >> you've been at state of the union addresses and you have experience at that level of government. what are the things that if people knew about the senate, what would you want to tell them, that most surprise you in terms of its dysfunction? >> well, the biggest thing that people needed to understand that there's one person and that's the majority leader, harry reid that controls everything, and the scheduling, with a bills are brought up and when he brings up a bill, for example, when he brought up the dream act. he brought it up. we're going to pass it tomorrow. take it or leave it, no amendments, nothing, shuts off the debate and tries to ram things through and spot people over th
on gun control and it happens to be a democrat by the name of harry reid. >> right, a democrat by the name of harry reid, who has opposed some of the very kind of things that president obama is calling for a vote on this time. so, yeah, i think the president should nudge people in his own party to do the things that he wants them to do. we haven't seen him do it on gun control, certainly didn't see him do it on immigration and never did it on senate budge proposal. >> megyn: she calls it an empty gesture untied to political reality. if you watched that moment, he seemed to be implying that there were lawmakers there and one would assume it was lawmakers on the opposite aisle from the president who are going to stop gabby giffords and other victims of gun violence from getting a vote on this legislation. that's not the reality right now in the u.s. congress. >> you're right and look, anytime the president speaks in a venue like this, he's got several audiences and clearly what he's saying is not for the members of congress in front of him. as you point out. harry reid could have
, harry reid, and said this is the solution. >> all right. meanwhile, senator lindsay graham is suggesting one potential -- >> i'm sorry, could i interrupt? i had a munchkin in my mouth. >> no, you can't have those. you're supposed to have your greek yogurt. >> i'm trying to make a point with a visual aid. this is like defense spending. done. gone. >> before the day has even started, you've just -- give those to me. >> i'm not homer simpson. what do you make of what woodward said? >> the president's in charge. he's got to figure out a way to stop the sequester. i think the symbolism of the last couple weeks haven't been great. he's not really out there leading a new path towards figuring out how to avoid something he says is a bad idea and promised as a candidate wouldn't happen. >> okay. john, joe's mouth is full. what do you think? >> i'm hap think the sequester be a bad thing. >> everyone says that. who's going to take the blame? who should? >> if it ends up going into effect, i think they're all going to take a lot of blame and they should. it's fair enough to say, if bob's reporting i
did because harry reid spent $2 million attacking him as a conservative during the republican primary. he said he never voted for a tax increase and always pro-life and supported a balanced budget amendment, and the object was help nominate the weakest republican candidate possible, so they'd have a chance -- >> but you set yourself up as a politbureau and the theory on republicanism is to lit the local state -- >> rand paul had a right and everybody has a chance in markets and let people go in and participate, the opposite of politbureau and the more who participate the better off we are and the more we examine the quality of the candidates the more likely we have fewer christine o'donnell's and more ra rand paul joos what do you think of the republican party's decision, temporarily, to block the nomination of the defense secretary for the first time in our history. >> why wouldn't they? in the end he's probably going to be confirmed, but in the meantime this is an opportunity -- the president thought in nominating chuck hagel he'd put him out there and rub republicans' noses in it a
for the republicans and harry reid. >> they did not filibuster them. >> that sets a dangerous precede precedent. >> by the way, alex, i blame harry reid and the democrats, too. we had a chance at the beginning of the congress. we had a chance to make real filibuster reform and we took a pass. >> okay. you make a good point there. let's listen to john mccain talking about immigration. here it is. >> the president, obviously has some thoughts about immigration reform which he drafted and guided his agencies to comment on. if the president proposes legislation, do you think it will fail? >> of course. of course it will. that is why we are working together, republicans and democrats, by the way he had no communications with the congress. i believe we are making progress in a bipartisan basis. >> does this sound like republicans saying no for any of the president's proposals? >> no. >> no. >> my problem with president obama is alex, he does not negotiate with republicans. he doesn't bring the leadership up to talk to him. he doesn't make phone calls. >> does he do that with democrats? >> that is tru
be a complete victory over barack obama and harry reid. and some republicans say just let the sequester happen, let the cuts happen. he says it is understandable because going to the trouble of fixing the sequester would be fixable, and the effort to do so would create strains in the republican congress. but what is understandable is not always responsible, allowing the sequester to go into effect would be deeply irresponsible. steve, deeply irresponsible has never been a winning argument with the house republicans. it has never scared them. >> but i guess, this is an interesting division in the republican party with the rise of the tea party. because the republican party has traditionally been the protector of the defense contracts. there is a conservative part that says to heck with them, we're in favor of big sweeping cuts but we're also okay with big sweeping cuts to the defense department. then you have big crystal, john mccain even floating the idea maybe he would be okay with more revenue as long as it meant getting the revenue off the sequester. the interesting thing here, march one is
this go? >> it goes to the u.s. senate and i think that harry reid should take it up. most voters do not believe that members of congress, the executive branch officials or the vice president deserve to have any pay increases this year. so it's a common sense measure and saves $11 billion over ten years given our fiscal situation. >> a lot of people look at $11 million over ten years with budgets of 3.5 trillion. it's a spit in the ocean. i understand it's a start but you're about making a statement. that if you're not getting the job done, you shouldn't get paid more for it but nancy pelosi talks about the dignity of your work and that this is essentially undignified. what do you say? >> part of the reason we have to do this is in response to her speakership, frankly. when she was making comments about obamacare that you have to pass the bill to find out what's in it, americans thought that process was undignified. so we're trying to change the way congress is viewed, trying to put ourselves out there, willing to sacrifice to show the american people we don't want to repeat the shen
, the cabinet battles never ends. senate majority leader harry reid announced friday he'll hold a vote to end the discussion on hagels nomination, forcing the hand of those senators who threaten to delay a vote. current senators roy blunt and john cornyn remind me a lot of gum pee muppets and john mccain, who indicated he'd nominate hagel to the same post if he became president are leading the charge. here's senator blunt. >> you think there could be a delay you didn't this week that means 10 days. you say you think there's enough votes, 40 votes to delay. >> my believe is there are 40 votes, not to set that as the permanent standard, that says it's too quick the end the debate on this nomination. michael: it's unbelievable. the more information these senators claim to want is about hagel's financial history. considering that they're the party that otherwise relishes the anonymity of their super pac donors, they seem too interested in where the former republican senator got his money. >> now we're getting word another nominee will be held up. paul and told u.s.a. today he will consider filibu
the post office, senator harry reid said you need approval from congress to halt delivery on saturday, how do you make the change without them signing off on the plan? we have an interpretation of the plan that means we can move ahead. there's people with other opinions. the good thing is this, the current budget resolution expires at the end of march. that gives us six weeks to work it out. what i ask congress to do, eliminate the restrictions so we can move to six days of package deliver and five days of mail delivery. >> how much does it save? >> $2 billion. we will have post offices open on saturday and we will deliver picture packages. door to door delivery of letters will go away. >> there's been talk that e-mail caused mail to drop. but there's the talk that the congress has had just as much an affect on the post office. what can congress do to save the post on office? >> here is our situation. we've lost 60% of stamped mail. you put in the mailbox, because people pay bills online, it's easy and free. you cannot argue. that the other thing we need congress to do is move ahead on leg
republicans passed so many things that just never see the light of day. and harry reid's senate. but the way things used to work, you used to pass things in the house, and then the senate would pass things. and then when harold and i at least were in washington in the '90s, then you go to conference committee, and they battle it out. that doesn't happen if harry reid doesn't pass things in the senate. he is the president's pocket veto. >> the step you're missing in that is -- and kevin mccarthy's interview proves that denial is not simply a river in egypt -- there's no conference committee. >> can i -- hold on. hold on. >> that's a good one. that was so fancy. >> is not just a river in egypt. >> that's what he does now. >> that's something brad pitt would say in one of those chanel ads. >> let's call brad. >> standing against the wall wearing nothing. >> he's wearing the sweater. >> go like this. >> you can't get away with saying things like that on this show. >> i want to hear his vision. >> why? more "morning joe." >> i know you're way above the cliche. i'm sorry. >> stupid cliche. >> what
sticky is once the committee sends it to the full senate and harry reid just a couple of minutes ago said he'd like to take the vote this week but the republican leader says it is possible there could be some delays to give opportunity for more information. sort of a slow walking. it's not a filibuster threat just yet. it's unclear how it will go. they don't want to show their hand but some of the resistance of republicans is they don't feel that chuck hagel explained enough about the financial arrangements since he left the senate, concerns about his views, concerns about the performance at his nomination hearing where he had some, you know, rough back and forth that we all watched. so the white house has told us that they believe the numbers are there for hagel to get the job at the pentagon. but there are a couple of steps that need to go forward, a critical one this afternoon likely to pass the committee. the rest of the story on hagel unfolding in a few days but we don't know what republicans will do. >> all right. kelly, thank you very much. we'll bring the audience the update as so
of pressure not only directed at republicans but the number of democrats. by harry reid who i think will rather not bring up a vote on the assault weapons ban. the president was able to move the needle and say look, you're going to vote against something that's fine. but at least be on the record. tell the american people why you have a straight up-or-down vote. i do think the chances of gun control are much better. they don't have to require -- to have a vote in the senate. if they can get a straight up or down bill, assault weapon ban passage, john boehner suggested he may not approve some of the proposals to the floor unless they have majority support. assault weapons ban won't have majority ban. if people support gun control can get the up-or-down vote, they may find some success. that's where it is smart for the president last night. we all talked about the merits of gun control and what not. the process needs to allow the american people to keep members of congress on record on this issue. >> stephanie: thank you for calling me from the train bathroom to have this incredible c
united, and they're going home. i am sure we can get harry reid, he will come back as the speaker will join with us in supporting the plan that the house and senate democrats and the president supports to avoid the sequester and avoid 750,000 americans losing their jobs. we will do it. they put a plan on their table, we put a plan on the table, the house has put zero plans on the table. >> they always talk about what they did in the last congress. those bills are gone. they keep pointing to them as if somehow magically they are going to be resurrected. if they want to resurrect them, put them on the floor and let's vote. >> it is often talked about, sequestration, and we have heard so much about the sequester. will you lay out areas that are most important to democrats that the sequester will impact? >> i will defer to our budget chair because he has worked with all of our caucus on this, but i know other members will be talking about it, and that is where the rubber meets the road in the appropriations committee. that we say, since you mentioned education, when they talk about cu
the day he got in the senate, he was bored. harry reid said, you don't like it here, you're bored here. why don't you run for president? >> he was considerably more politic about how he spent his short time in the senate. >> talking about barack obama's pathway he wasn't worried about that, he wasn't worried about building bridges, right? >> no, but he found a way to get along with his fellow senators as did hillary clinton who came along having greater ambitions, but careful to go step by step and not to seem bigger for her britches than she wanted to seem. >> this is an odd way to last in washington. we'll see how he does. >> lindsey graham said you get respect in the senate if you can throw a punch and you have to show you can make a deal. ted cruz has thrown lots of punches and hasn't shown he can legislate or endure. this remains to be seen. >>> and at the white house to deliver remarks on billions of dollars on automatic budget cuts set to kick in next friday. according to administration officials, the president will challenge republicans to make a quote simple choice between pro
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)